Since the US Supreme Court ruled in 2018 that states could legalize sports betting, California, with 40 million people and numerous professional teams, has been the great white whale, eluding gaming companies and tribal communities that they host casinos. At stake is $3.1 billion in annual revenue, according to an industry consulting firm.
It’s no surprise, then, that voters are facing not one, but two ballot propositions this fall aimed at capturing California’s sports betting market. Although neither appears to have strong public support, gambling addiction experts are far more concerned about one than the other.
Proposition 26, backed by some of the state’s largest tribal casino owners, would allow sports betting, but only inside existing brick-and-mortar establishments that already offer gambling and at horse racing venues. By contrast, Proposition 27, designed and funded by national corporate betting sites like DraftKings, FanDuel and BetMGM, would legalize online sports betting, essentially opening the door for people to bet on the games, and the athletes and games in them. , whether they do. You are sitting in the bleachers or on the couch.
Each measure would likely increase cases of problem gambling and gambling addiction, but mental health experts say the sheer ease of online betting — scores, player point totals, number of penalties in a game and almost everything else related to a sporting event. increases the chances of problems.
“You don’t get addicted to fantasy football all season long; you get addicted to betting on the game,” said Dr. Timothy Fong, a psychiatrist and co-director of UCLA’s Game Studies Program. “Instead of betting on the Rams-Chargers game, I can now make an infinite amount right from my phone.”
Sports betting is already legal in some form in 36 states and Washington, DC, and calls to betting hotlines increased in Michigan, Connecticut, New York and other states after they allowed this form of gambling . The National Problem Gambling Helpline Network reported a 45% increase in year-over-year inquiries in 2021, when 11 states went live with some new form of sports betting.
Although gambling addiction does not involve the ingestion of drugs or chemicals, it does involve the stimulation of regions of the brain in the same way that other addictive disorders do. The American Psychiatric Association classifies gambling as such, placing it in the same category as tobacco, alcohol, cocaine, cannabis, and opioids. Research shows that mesolimbic dopamine, which provides the brain with feelings of reward and pleasure, is released in greater amounts in pathological gamblers than in people in control groups. Players become attached to this reward.
For many states, the lure is obvious: tax revenue. In 2020, Pennsylvania collected $38.7 million from gambling, three-quarters of which was generated by mobile sports betting. The nonpartisan California Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates the state will collect hundreds of millions in tax dollars each year, but likely no more than $500 million annually, if Proposition 27 passes. The bureau pegged state revenue from Proposition 26 at tens of millions of dollars a year. Some of that money would come from a 10% tax on sports betting at racetracks, and some could come from tribal casinos, which would have to renegotiate compacts with the state.
For weeks, Californians have been bombarded with competing ads in what has become the nation’s most expensive ballot initiative fight, at $400 million and counting. The fight may have turned off voters. A recent UC-Berkeley Institute for Governmental Studies poll found that 42 percent of likely voters opposed Proposition 26, compared to 31 percent who supported it. Support for Proposition 27 was even lower, with 53% of likely voters opposed and only 27% in favor.
Both ballot measures offer limited new resources to help people with gambling problems or addictions, and neither requires the state to improve monitoring or treatment.
The authors of Proposition 26 included a provision to direct 10 percent of horse track sports betting revenue to the state Department of Public Health, with some of that money set aside “to prevent and treat problems of play”, according to the supplied material. to KHN by supporters of the initiative. But racetracks have been in decline for decades and their share of sports betting would be the smallest piece of the pie. Also, the amount that could be generated from tribal casinos is uncertain because it would depend on whether the new compacts require additional payments and direct money to treatment programs.
Kathy Fairbanks, spokeswoman for the Vote Yes on Proposition 26 campaign, noted that tribes already contribute roughly $65 million a year to the state Gaming Control Commission, which funds the Bureau of Gaming ‘Problematic betting. “Before the tribes got casino gaming in California more than 20 years ago, there was no funding dedicated to problem gambling,” Fairbanks said. California has had circuit betting since the 1930s and the lottery started in 1985.
Proposition 27 would require participating businesses to pay 10% of gross gaming revenue to the state. Of that, 85% would be designated for mental health and homelessness programs, including problem gambling.
Nathan Click, spokesman for the Yes on 27 campaign, said the initiative would enact “the strongest problem gambling safeguards for online sports betting in the country” and require employees at each licensed gaming platform to be trained on how detect gambling problems.
But psychologists say online betting is immediate, accessible and almost effortless. Anyone with a phone, tablet or computer can get started with a credit card. And there is virtually no limit to the bets that can be placed on a single game, even while playing.
“People don’t get addicted to Mega Millions,” Fong said. “They become addicted to scratchers, with more bets per minute.”
One of the ways the gambling industry entices people to keep playing is through promotional credits that essentially allow them to start gambling without spending their own money. Rick Benson, founder of Algamus Gambling Treatment Services, said that “free play” offers are not only common in casinos, but are also heavily marketed on websites and social media, which can attract new players. so they think they have nothing to lose.
This makes Proposition 27 a bigger concern. Researchers from McGill University and the Oregon Research Institute found that online gaming is a gateway to behavioral disorders, including problem gambling, marked by continued gaming despite negative consequences in one’s life. ‘a person, or a total addiction, that is uncontrollable. Gambling can lead to ruinous outcomes, including bankruptcy, mental and family health problems, and substance use.
Because Proposition 26 restricts gambling at casinos and racetracks, it could moderate the activity. “Studies have shown that gambling participation is somehow tied to access,” said Robert Jacobson, executive director of the California Council on Problem Gambling. “Participation rates increase when people are within 50 to 60 miles of a casino.”
Still, it’s unclear how Proposition 26 would affect the prevalence of gambling because the provision also paves the way for tribal casinos to add Vegas-style games such as roulette and craps.
California’s gambling addiction problem is also poorly understood, particularly because the state’s Office of Problem Gambling hasn’t updated its data since 2006. In August, a state audit state that the office, which has an annual budget of approximately $8.5. million, “has not effectively evaluated its programs.” The office does not know how many California residents are experiencing or have recently experienced problem gambling.
Addiction researchers, however, believe the problem has remained constant, with around 4% of residents having a gambling problem or gambling addiction. That equates to about 1.6 million Californians who may have a gambling problem, although the number could be much higher because fewer than 1 in 10 people with gambling disorders seek treatment.
Both initiatives would amend the constitution so the legislature could create new sports betting laws. State agencies would then have to come up with regulations to implement sports betting, which experts say could be gamed by gambling interests.
“The votes,” Jacobson said, “are just the front end of the activity.”
This story was produced by KHN, which publishes California Healthline, an independent editorial service of the California Health Care Foundation.
|
|
